CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC55D5D7A { height:26.95pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 12 January 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no 25605/15 Aleksander MARKOVIĆ against Croatia and 5 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Croatian nationals, with the exception of the second applicant (application no. 31796/15) which is a limited liability company incorporated under Croatian law. The applicants’ personal details, the names of their representatives and the details regarding the length of the impugned proceedings are indicated the table annexed below. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to civil (applications nos. 31796/15, 39535/15, 9284/16 and 56775/16), criminal (application no. 35262/15) or enforcement proceedings (application no. 25605/15). On various dates the applicants lodged requests for protection of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the presidents of the courts before which their proceedings were pending. Even though that remedy under the 2013 Courts Act is purely acceleratory, three applicants (applications no. 31796/15, 35262/15 and 39535/15) also sought to be awarded compensation for the excessive length of their proceedings. In two of the six cases the applicants’ requests were either dismissed (application no. 25605/15) or declared inadmissible (application no.   31796/15). After their subsequent appeals against the first-instance decisions were dismissed, those two applicants each lodged constitutional complaints, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on the ground that the decisions complained of were not open to constitutional review. In four (applications no. 35262/15, 39535/15, 9284/16 and 56775/16) of the six cases the applicants’ requests for the acceleratory remedy were granted and the court presidents ordered the judges hearing the applicants’ cases to give decisions within specific time-limits. In two of those four cases where the applicants also sought compensation (applications no. 35262/15 and 39535/15) the court presidents dismissed that part of the applicants’ requests. The applicant in case no. 35262/15 appealed against such a decision but his appeal was dismissed. The judges hearing the applicants’ cases complied with the orders by the court presidents and adopted judgments within specified time-limits, save in the application no. 56775/16 where the time-limit was exceeded by eighteen days. This opened a possibility for that applicant to lodge a request for payment of appropriate compensation, a combined (acceleratory-compensatory) remedy under the 2013 Courts Act, and seek compensation before the higher court for the excessive length of her civil proceedings. However, her request for payment of appropriate compensation was dismissed with an explanation that under the 2013 Courts Act those whose requests for acceleratory remedy had been granted and the judges had complied with the order to deliver judgments within the given time-limits, were not entitled to compensation. She fell into that category because in her case the delay in complying with such time-limit had been negligible. That applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed, whereas her subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 30 March 2016 by the Constitutional Court on the ground that the decision complained of was not open to constitutional review. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, §§ 22-27, 7 July 2016 and Vrtar v. Croatia , no.   39380/13, §§ 63-64 and 78, 7 January 2016. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time on account of the excessive length of their civil, criminal or enforcement proceedings, which was not remedied at the domestic level as they did not receive any compensation for it. 2.     Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 25605/15 alleges further that he was denied an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings. 3.     Lastly, the applicant in application no. 56775/16 complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the excessive length of the civil proceedings in question, which concerned division of matrimonial property, also violated her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.     QUESTIONS COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Having regard to the fact that none of the applicants obtained compensation for the length of the proceedings complained of, were the remedies they resorted to effective, as required by Article 13 thereof (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC] no. 64886/01, §§ 74-76, ECHR 2006 ‑ V)?   2.     Was the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION Was the length of the proceedings in the case no. 56775/16 in breach of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? APPENDIX No.   Application no.   Lodged on   Applicant name date of birth place of residence/registered office   Represented by   Type of proceedings     Period to be taken into consideration (and number of instances)   Completed or pending   25605/15 25/05/2015 Aleksander MARKOVIĆ 10/12/1936 Zagreb   Renata DOZET DASKAL   Enforcement proceedings   Four and a half years   pending   31796/15 23/06/2015 STAR NET SOFTWARE d.o.o. Zagreb   Svetlana MAROHNIĆ   Civil proceedings   Six years and eight months before one instance   pending   35262/15 14/07/2015 Vigor KOMAR 09/12/1949 Rijeka   Vladimir MARGAN   Criminal proceedings (civil party)   Six years and four months before three instances   completed (30 June 2016)   39535/15 03/08/2015 Franjo MARTINOVIĆ 04/05/1941 Sisak   NA   Civil proceedings   Six years before two instances   pending   9284/16 08/02/2016 Vlado PERIĆ 24/11/1962 Sesvete   Lidija HORVAT   Civil proceedings   Eight years and five months before two instances   completed (23 August 2016)   56775/16 22/09/2016   Marija HORVAT 24/02/1965 Vir   Vesna ŠNUR   Civil proceedings   Four years and eleven months before two instances   completed (12 October 2015)